Re: The Reluctant Fundamentalist Download Mp4
Jalisa Landgren
During his interview with Lincoln, Changez says he was approached by a terrorist cell to become a mujahid and was tempted to accept, angry and disillusioned by "the arrogance, the blindness, the hypocrisy" of the US. He refused when told about the "fundamental truths" of the Quran, echoing a phrase from Jim Cross during their first encounter, "focusing on the fundamentals." Changez explains that both Islamic fundamentalists and blind capitalists like Underwood Samson similarly simplify and exploit people for their own means.
"A brilliant book. With spooky restraint and masterful control, Hamid unpicks the underpinnings of the most recent episode of distrust between East and West. But this book does not merely excel in capturing a developing bitterness. The narrative is balanced by a love as powerful as the sinister forces gathering, even when it recedes into a phantom of hope. It is this balance, and the constant negotiation of the political with the personal, that creates a nuanced and complex portrait of a reluctant fundamentalist."
That's what a Pakistani professor starts with as he tells an American journalist why he's involved with Islamic fundamentalists after nearly mollywhopping the money-stuffed pinata that is the American dream.
A note on news: I couldn't imagine anyone watching this movie without thinking of the recent Boston bombings. The Reluctant Fundamentalist is quite critical as to how Americans treated people following the other major act of terror on our soil. Twitter, one writer said on April 15, does its best work 5 minutes after a tragedy and its worst work in the 12 hours after that. Perhaps, in a way, Americans aren't too different: they behave their best in the immediate aftermath of terror, but our long-term reaction leaves things to be questioned. But through questioning our responses, our prejudices, our ways or seeing others, we could avoid being fundamentalists, so to speak.
Suddenly, the discussion became far more outspoken. It was obvious, some said, that the two men, one American and one Muslim Pakistani, were on different sides. One looked like a fundamentalist terrorist, they said, and the other a CIA operative.
In Ahmed, Nair has a splendid partner. His Changez is layered and complex -- a strange man at the crossroads of two cultures, buffeted between both. Schreiber's Bobby is on murkier ground; though the actor does a fine job imbuing the role with as much gravitas as possible, he's simply not as clearly conceptualized as Changez, and the character suffers in comparison. In fact, the film whispers in the end when it's supposed to crescendo' we can spot the denoument a mile away. (Okay, maybe three.) Still, The Reluctant Fundamentalist is a beautifully filmed, well-performed drama that pushes viewers to take a look at issues we may feel reluctant to examine. That it does so with a sometimes obvious hand is forgivable.
This Occidentalist approach to the West on a sensitive issue is tremendously provocative and harshly expresses emotions for a Westerner, that is certain. However, in another perspective, this particular representation may not be because Hamid justifies such an approach; but rather, because he just responds to any harsh Orientalist or essentialist approach in a similarly constructed counter discourse. A role-change might have been another way to put it then, just like the aim of such revolutionary writers from post-colonial cultures as Achebe or Ngugi. Yet, it is hard to assess this as the book is full of contradictions from the very title which is composed of two literally opposite connotations--reluctant and fundamentalist--to the very last scene. Also, the dramatic monologue of the first person narrator in The Reluctant Fundamentalist can definitely be considered unreliable. On the other hand, if one analyzes the ostensibly insinuated or intended peace, respect and understanding messages in some details of the book; in fact, Hamid may as well be said to aim to break down any stereotypical representations Americans or non-Americans have long been exposed to. For instance, Changez and Wainwright, whose personality he speaks highly of, are the only 'non-white' employees in the book of the prosperous New York firm, Underwood Samson, yet, Changez emphasizes at every opportunity that even the two of them are "marvelously diverse" (42). Taking all these factors into consideration, one may raise another question as to whether Hamid can actually serve such good ends as breaking down the stereotypical image of the other. With a witty irony any individual contradicts himself and does no good, but rather creates the same discourse that he opposes.
What is most significant about the book in this respect is that although it is supposed to be a 'dialogue' with the American stranger as the second of the two main characters in the book; the entire novel is based upon an extended monologue by Changez. He asks and answers the questions not even offering his American guest any chance to explain his feelings; but rather, he himself predicts and even tells them on behalf of him. Thus, this deliberate and overt narrative technique can be argued to give Changez a certain control and power over the American. This is not something new when one considers the whole media context in a modern era. Any Western product can show traces of this kind of onesided discourse; especially the movies. For instance, the 2007 American film Lions for Lambs by Robert Redford produces a similar discourse. It gives no role or voice to anyone from Afghanistan or any view from Afghanistan, though the whole movie is about America's war on terrorism in Afghanistan. There is immense exposure to the justification of Americans' reason in the film but no trace of any influence or voice of the other, the "enemy". So, then, The Reluctant Fundamentalist can be argued to be like a critical parody in order to show how such bias, suspicion, reductive representations and fear of the other are destructive and bring no good to either side. That such discourses can even lead to one's being forced to become a 'reluctant' fundamentalist appears to be another central theme of the novel. However, one can ask whether it would be better to make a representation based upon the seemingly peaceful and mutual understanding messages throughout the novel rather than a 'successful' representation of the fear and bias of the other. There seems to be no evidence in the novel to refute the clash of civilizations or to make the dialogue of civilizations not seem like a utopia.
As night falls, the tension grows between the Changez and the American and a sense of mystery and suspense grows page by page. Who is this American? Is he a spy? Does he have a gun in his pocket, and what exactly has the 'reluctant fundamentalist' come to believe? This novel has one of the most ambiguous endings in contemporary fiction and readers will be telling Mohsin Hamid how they think it finishes.
aa06259810